“Befikre”… An underwhelming rom-com with some interesting ideas

Aditya Chopra’s new film, Befikre, begins beautifully. The opening credits appear over images of lip-locked couples in Paris. The lines of the song that plays in the background, Labon ka karobaar, suggest that these couples are literally starry-eyed romantics: Jebon mein bikhre hain taarein, khaali hua aasmaan. (The sky is empty because the stars are scattered in their pockets.) The kissing is French. The music is too. Swooning violins waltzing with an accordion. This stretch is the rom-com world’s equivalent of a scented bubble bath. It invites us to sink into what promises to be a relaxing romantic comedy, beginning with the first meeting of Boy and Girl. Instead, after the credits, a TV set crashes down on a pavement. In an apartment above, it’s the last meeting of Boy and Girl. They have a fight. She storms out. Chopra is telling us, in no uncertain terms, that this is not your average love story.

For a while, the film is a lust story. Dharam (Ranveer Singh) falls for Shyra (Vaani Kapoor). But he isn’t eying the altar – just her ass. He tells her, “You’re going to ditch me and go away, so until then, let’s savour the moment.” They have sex. She leaves the next morning and doesn’t leave a phone number. We seem to be watching a resolutely desi director’s stab at a taboo-breaking non-relationship: Last Tango in Patiala. Later, when Dharam pursues Shyra, she says she can’t get into a friends-with-benefits kind of arrangement with him because he’ll fall in love. He says he won’t, because falling in love is the end of fun. The director who made us wait three hours, in Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge, for the heroine’s father to allow his daughter to marry the hero now gives us the scene where the hero casually informs the heroine’s parents that he’s going to live in with their daughter. In this scheme of things, the Eiffel Tower isn’t a symbol of romance. It’s an erection.

It’s entirely possible to read Befikre as Chopra’s denunciation of his most famous film, starting with the gender switch: the boy is from India and is now abroad, the girl is a first-generation European. The girl gets the “palat” moment – it’s not what you expect. Dharam plays Mehndi lagake rakhna, but it’s not to assure the girl that he will carry her away – it’s quite the opposite, really. We get a lighter version of the scene where Farida Jalal urged Kajol to elope with Shah Rukh Khan – but here, the father isn’t against the match. The heroine herself is. (Though the conceit of the hero doing his best to be liked by the heroine’s parents stays. He keeps touching their feet.) Chopra even reinvents the taandav moment from his father’s films, where a frenzied bout of dancing served as a barometer of the heroine’s emotions. Now, it’s a pas de deux. It’s a barometer of both their emotions.

Conceptually speaking, then, Befikre is always interesting. The essence of the title (which means carefree) lingers like a scent throughout. The interval moment is the lightest in recent times, absolutely devoid of heavy drama. There is no “reason” for Shyra’s fear of commitment – her parents are the happiest, most well-adjusted couple in the universe. The plot is advanced through a series of silly dares – that’s how Shyra falls for Dharam, that’s how she agrees to be with him. And what could have been a huge thunder-and-lightning scene is played out like a pie fight. This isn’t Mohabbatein. This is the Marx Brothers.

But I didn’t buy a minute of it. I didn’t believe Dharam and Shyra would move in together. I didn’t believe they’d continue being friends after breaking up. I didn’t even buy Dharam and Shyra. Ranveer Singh tries everything. He does a killer imitation of Anil Kapoor’s dance moves from Ram Lakhan. He struts around in his briefs. He bares his butt. (This is one film where the hero is asked to take off more clothes than the heroine.) Vaani Kapoor speaks more than passable French, and she dances magnificently (though she seems more a dancer who wows you with technique rather than transports you with emotion). But the two together strike no sparks. They are as much caricatures as the film’s gay and lesbian characters.

Befikre is joyless, rhythmless. The back-and-forth-in-time narration may well have been part of the screenplay, but I couldn’t shake off the feeling that it was more the editor Namrata Rao’s work, that she took one look at the rushes and decided something needed to be done to keep things at least minimally surprising. Otherwise, the film is terribly obvious. The “touches” are interesting to analyse, but they cannot make a movie. You need emotional investment. You need to care about these borderline-unlikable characters. It’s not a good sign when you keep wishing someone would make a love story around the heroine’s parents instead.

Befikre, finally, is further proof that the kings of an older romantic cine-verse have indeed abdicated their thrones. Just recently, we had Shah Rukh Khan play a supporting role in an Alia Bhatt starrer, and here too, we have a scene that says a woman is not a “slut” just because she has had many sexual partners. (That the man apologises, and acknowledges that it was less about her experience and more about his inexperience, was, for me, this film’s finest moment.) And just recently, Karan Johar’s film echoed the conceit from Rockstar that you need to feel great pain to make great music. Now, we have Aditya Chopra echoing the Matargashti song situation from Tamasha (two near-strangers cutting loose through song). And from Love Aaj Kal, we get the “breakup celebration,” the realisation that one can sometimes fall harder for (and become far better friends with) an ex, and also the poor placeholder-boyfriend and girlfriend who we’re meant to think actually stand a chance with Shyra and Dharam, who is just the latest instance of a man-child who becomes a man after meeting a very different kind of woman. Somewhere, Imtiaz Ali is punching a fist in the air.

Haven’t seen the movie yet, so can’t comment on it. But the trailer reminded me of some wannabe cool films that yash raj tried to make a decade ago. Neal n Nikki comes to mind. Can’t figure out why they would try it again. Unless they thought neal n nikki was ahead of its times and hence didn’t work. Shudder!

“the Eiffel Tower isn’t a symbol of romance. It’s an erection” – the French may have a different take on this! lol!

From your review, it feels like, Befikre is ‘spiritual sequel’ to DDLJ.
Vani Kapoor could be the daughter of SRK and Kajol.. (“her parents are the happiest, most well-adjusted couple in the universe”).

so, a ‘repeat’ movie from the director whose show was the longest running in the world.

Ok Brangan before even i began reading i had one curiosity. How do u or any critic get to watch a film before friday? Do filmmakers arrange previews for you guys ? I ask this simply because whenever in the past i read a review before even friday morning show which was the first show was made available to us aam janta, i suspected foul play and did not give the write up or review any weightage. But now that i have noticed the same happening with my no.1 film critic also, i had to ask. Thanks.

And how apt is it that these directors are working with young actors in an effort to ape the effect that Imtiaz’s love stories create, while Imtiaz has moved on to working with “their” actor, in fact THE actor when it comes to romances- SRK.

I absolutely agree with you that the “slut” moment was THE best moment of the film. I am glad that that scene had only Ranveer in the frame. His apology almost felt personal. Like he was apologising to me for every man who’s ever thought that way.

His sincerity and sweetness just drips through every frame. Adi Chopra and YRF don’t deserve him.

@P: And how apt is it that these directors are working with young actors in an effort to ape the effect that Imtiaz’s love stories create, while Imtiaz has moved on to working with “their” actor, in fact THE actor when it comes to romances- SRK.

I laughed at this, and found myself agreeing strongly with that summation. I also agree with you about Ranveer Singh being so, so, so much better than what Adi and Yashraj can give him. I know he’s a YRF ‘boy’, but honestly, apart from Band Baaja Baaraat, which was directed by Maneesh Sharma, I have not liked him in any of the YRF offerings, simply because the films themselves were not worth it.

Adi, as a director, is one of the most regressive people I have come across. His fame has always befuddled me. And I hold him responsible for spoiling Shah Rukh, the actor. Seriously.

Give me Karan Johar any day, if I had to pick. He’s a more honest director.

Can this be considered as your ‘prayashchit’ review for the paap of ADHM review. I agree with everything especially on the back and forth narration part. Couldn’t quite come to terms with vani’s character speaking fluent hindi in the film quite contradictory to her characerisation. I also feel the acting was pretty average, Ranveer seemed to try too hard and Vani was wooden in few areas.

@Anu: I agree about Adi and KJo. Growing up I always somehow for some reason (KWK maybe?) thought of Adi C as the more “intellectual” cousin while I thought KJo was the copycat “frivolous” cousin.

But now that I have grown up and especially after watching ADHM and Befikre I realize that KJo is not just all those things you pointed out, he is also a better and more unique writer.

For example, sure, he took the tortured musician man-boy idea from Rockstar, but the way he played around with it, especially the relationship with Aishwarya’s character really makes me respect him more. Some of the scenes and sequences in ADHM were so visceral and yet heart-thumpingly real. Like I said in a comment on the ADHM review, he treats love like a fire that is scary, but he wants to burn in it.

Adi C is disappointingly mundane, with barely any interesting writing that stands out, I mean, Tevar (which released a few years back) had more interesting, nuanced writing, though few people, (BR excluded) gave it any credit. There’s a web series called “Little Things” that does a better job at detailing the life of a young couple living in and they did in like what 1% of the budget that he wasted on Befikre.

Is there any scene in Befikre that didn’t stand out because of Ranveer? No. I don’t think so.

Are there scenes in ADHM that stood out irrespective of the actors? Tons! I mean, I loved all the tiny little cute scenes in the Bulleya song alone! So perfect and lovely- like a familiar, rich Xmas cake with a few new fruits that added interesting flavours.

There was a time when I believed in astrology (yuck I know!) and it always excited me that both Adi C and KJo were Geminis like me 😛 But I leaned a bit more toward Adi. Now that I am all grown out of that phase it embarasses me a little but its also good learning you know? I mean, just because someone is silly and hosts a gossip show and the other is all Greta Garbo-ish in his seclusion doesn’t mean the latter is better than the former…

Anyway, I think Adi C was good as long as Yash Chopra was there to look over him and see to it that he did a good job, without him, he’s just some guy trying to be cool. And its not working.

@P – Honest confession: I devoured Linda Goodman’s Sun Signs when I was in college. I didn’t believe in astrology, but I loved the descriptions.

Another honest confession: I hated, hated! DDLJ. Again, give me Sooraj Barjatya, with his traditional mores and conservative values – I may not agree with a lot of them, and the sugar in his movies may give me diabetes, but I respect that there are people who live these values. There’s something sweet about Barjatya’s beliefs – you get the sense that he actually believes in it. There’s an integrity.

With Adi, it’s like a wannabe cool ‘modern’ guy with ‘traditional’ values, skewing towards ‘traditional’ being the aspirational value. Which inevitably puts the woman in the equation at a disadvantage.

With Karan, there has been a learning curve; what I like about him as a film-maker is his honesty towards what he’s attempting on screen. He’s not saying, ‘I’m making this great film.’ He’s saying, ‘Hey, I got Shah Rukh and Kaajol, and this is my first movie, and I’m going to transport Archie and Riverdale to South Bombay.’ Or ‘I have the biggest casting coup of the century – AB and Jaya, SRK and Kaajol, Hrithik and Kareena. Now let’s make a film around them.’ But even he progressed to a complex, messy, flawed, but complicated KANK. He’s still honest about what he set out to do then, as he is about accepting his ‘shallowness’ as a TV host. (And while I’m on a confessional, let me also say that I thoroughly enjoy watching Koffee with Karan, because it’s such a silly show, and it’s not meant to be taken seriously at all.)

Adi makes me want to cut myself slowly with a blunt razor blade. And it’s not just his cinema. It’s not about hiding himself away – I don’t give a damn if I never saw him, ever. It’s that he hid Rani away for so many years, not even giving her the legitimacy of a relationship. Ugh! How anyone can put up with (and endorse) a deliberate disavowal of self for so long, is incomprehensible to me. And I see that double standard in his cinema as well. I wonder if i was the only person who also hated what he did to Anusha in Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi.

Another big problem I have with Adi C is his over-focus on the parental seal of approval. Even the stories/screenplays he wrote for Yash C have this aspect be ith DTPH, Veer Zaara or JTHJ (which he literally ghost directed from what I hear).

Its strange na, that Yash C who is from a village had more modern sensibilities than his Bombay-bred son- be it Juhi and Sunny in Darr or Sri and Anil K in Lamhe, or even Parveen and Amitabh in Deewar, the parental figures’ approval barely featured in the scheme of things.

Adi C with DDLJ and all the later YRF films has made love meaningless unless it has the express approval of parents. I have literally grown to hate the second half of DDLJ where Raj is begging Simran’s dad for the “hand” of his daughter. I still love the film, but I certainly think that is more problematic than say Anjali dressing more “Girly” in the latter half of KKHH(its a normal thing for girls to grow out of the teenage tomboy phase- speaking as an ex-tomboy myself), though for some reason it is more common for the latter to catch flak than the former.

“The primary aim was to make a very honest love story… a love story that would make it at the box office. I wanted to make a film which I would to make a film which I would enjoy seeing. In that way I was being selfish – I was making a film for myself. A wholesome film which I wouldn’t mind seeing again and again.

On a broader level, I was also trying to get something out of my system. I’d be quite troubled while watching those love stories in which the boy and the girl elope. I’d wonder how can they just cut themselves off from their parents who’ve done so much for them? How can they be so callous? They have no right to break the hearts of their parents. I wanted to say that if your love is strong enough, then you will come together… your parents will be convinced about your love ultimately. ”

oh oh.. Vani came across interesting in her interviews – doesnt translate on screen is it?

Regarding Adi chopra vs Kjo, I can never diss DDLJ, it was an important part of our lives then. ( we watched it birthday party after birthday in school, a classmate took srk’s name instead of her boyfriend’s ..).

But RNBDJ was so regressive and I have never liked Kjo’s films – they are tear fests. Dont even buy in to the basic premise of KKHH. Even more hate it when they do a meta reference to their older films as if they are sholay.

P, to your point on elopement, I thought the Marathi film ‘sairat’ did a great job of showing the aftermath of an elopement.

BR, about this entire Adi discussion, imho, like all directors who continue to make films over a reasonably long timeline, Adi is also going through the process of trying to stay relevant and make relevant films that will hopefully appeal to a majority of the audience. befikre seems like an attempt to stay relevant…

Vikram: I get the staying relevant part. But YRF has done this living-in thing between an NRI couple over a decade ago, with Salaam Namaste. They’ve even done this with a desi couple in Shuddh Desi Romance. So the problem is that nothing feels interesting or new.

And even if the premise is the same, it would have been easy to overlook the familiarity if the film was fun and witty and if the leads had chemistry and the songs were good — all of which was the case with O Kadhal Kanmani. Another instance of an older-gen director talking to a younger audience.

That was a lightweight film too, but it made you smile and the actors made you care about their getting together. They weren’t trying to be cool in quotation marks, which is the case here.

On the subject of this notion of having to experience anger to actually express authentic emotions in your music, is it really an Imtiaz invention? Isn’t that theme also explored in Aashiqui (and basically what the song Ab Tere Bin Jee Lenge Hum is about)?

His sincerity and sweetness just drips through every frame. Adi Chopra and YRF don’t deserve him

Punee, aapne isse achhi baath kabhi nahin ki ❤

This is Adi playing god After having played Brahma ,he is now playing Siva, ought to destroy his own creation. After the monumental performance as Bajirao, which took him to another stratosphere , this one has thrown him right back in to the underworld .phew, if you have mentors like these , you dont need many enemies

Well all hopes pinned on Padmavati now . SLB and Ranveer are made for each other.

Another honest confession: I hated, hated! DDLJ

Anu, same here. i forever wish that film would never have been made, it radically changed Hindi cinema and not for the better. it destroyed SRK , the actor forever. his next film Mohabbattein (what a title), was enough to make you understand what a hollow dishonest filmmaker he is. And look at how he started out on Befikre, by tweeting an imaginary conversation with his long deceased father , huh what kind of schmuck would do that.well Adi makes KJo look like Raja Harishchandra in honesty sweepstakes 🙂

Its strange na, that Yash C who is from a village had more modern sensibilities than his Bombay-bred son- be it Juhi and Sunny in Darr or Sri and Anil K in Lamhe, or even Parveen and Amitabh in Deewar, the parental figures’ approval barely featured in the scheme of things.

Punee,I think that has got a lot to do with the writers of that film as well,Also, those days, rebelling against your parents was considered the cool thing. that’s until DDLJ. YC himself has tagged on a convenient ending for Silsila. so its not that he was that daring when it comes to tradition in films. Adi’s synopsis of DDLJ at YRF site is definitely eye roll worthy 🙂

It’s that he hid Rani away for so many years, not even giving her the legitimacy of a relationship. Ugh! How anyone can put up with (and endorse) a deliberate disavowal of self for so long, is incomprehensible to me

Anu, may be one can explain it by saying that Adi was not divorced at the time, so acknowledging the relationship might have harmed Rani more than him. or may be not. But its nothing compared to the way he destroyed her career.She was the best actress of her generation and at the peak of her career , around 2005-06 – when she got involved with him and started working exclusively for him.- when he put her in a series of ridiculously disgusting films. from Laga chunri mein daagh to the one where she played desi mary poppins or Harbhajan singh or whatever. by 2010, she was finished.

Vikram,I believe KJo is remaking sairat in Hindi. hope he doesn’t set the story in Vienna 🙂

@MANK, I’m not saying they should have flaunted their relationship while he wasn’t yet divorced; I was saying, acknowledge it. Or at the very least, don’t put your loved one in a spot where she has to lie about it. I know she went along with that lie – for years! – and that makes me want to smack her as well. (And she’s one of my favourite actresses!)

I totally agree with you about Adi scuttling her career; but again, where’s her agency in this? Or did she want to be Mrs Chopra more than she wanted to be an actress? (That’s a valid choice, by the way.) By the looks of it, she did want to act in good movies, and his influence made a difference. And that was that. I was surprised – and impressed – with Mardaani. I hope she will continue to do those sort of roles. She’s a fantastic actress, and it’s a shame to lose such talent.

have literally grown to hate the second half of DDLJ where Raj is begging Simran’s dad for the “hand” of his daughter. I still love the film, but I certainly think that is more problematic than say Anjali dressing more “Girly” in the latter half of KKHH

I have less problem with the ‘asking for the daughter’s hand’ scenario than with the way Raj went about it. So it’s okay to lie and scheme your way into your beloved’s household, flirt with her cousin to the extent that that girl falls in love with you, take no notice of what your beloved wants (elope, damnit!) and be all-round obnoxious, but hey, you’re respecting your parents!

I agree about Anjali’s changeover not being that problematic. Tomboy turning into someone who like to dress up and look pretty is very, very common. And whether we like it or not, Rahul being bedazzled with the ‘new’ Anjali is also relatively true to life. When someone you’ve always seen as a ‘buddy’ suddenly changes into this beautiful bird of paradise, you’re bound to take a second look. One also assumes that he’s always liked Anjali, and that he’s missed her when she went away.

What was problematic (to me) was the change in Anjali’s narrative arc. She doesn’t suddenly become less competent at basketball just because she’s in a sari. She doesn’t become a shy violet from the fiesty girl she was because, oh, no! She’s in luvvv! [But I also admire Karan’s honesty in admitting that he made a hash of KKHH, and that he didn’t know what he was thinking of, only he thought he was being very clever then.]

Anu: OMG! I had all the Linda Goodman books too! She was such a good writer, her descriptions were brilliant. All of high-school I spent with that stuff. Heady!!

With a heavy heart I gave them away at Blossoms in exchange for more Ayn Rand as a college student. Changed priorities and all that 😉

MANK: Re: Silsila, Yashji was requested by JB (who was his rakhi sister) to change the ending. Fair I think…he was a sentimental man. To me the film ends when Chandni and Amit elope together (Just like HDDCS ends midway the title song when Sameer runs towards Nandini on the bridge!!)

Anu: OK. Here’s my take on KKHH. Anjali has not played basketball for many years because it reminds her of Rahul while he has played basketball for the very same reason- it reminds him of her. To be good at a game you need to practice- all the time. This is why he was bad when they were in college and she was good- because she practiced all the time and he didn’t (busy flirting with girls, idiot!)

Re: Her going shy, I am thinking Anjali hasn’t had experience with men since she left Rahul, except for Aman, whom she basically bullies. So to be all blushy and shy with a total masculine man like Rahul is normal no, especially when she’s nursed a crush for a decade!? Especially when he’s SRK and is making those puppy eyes at you 😛

I know what Karan thinks of KKHH, but I think its his second best movie after ADHM(K3G is third best cause PPOOOHHH!! is the best character, the defining diva of the early 2000s 😛 ). HATED KANK AND MNIK- which I think is when he lost his soul trying to intellectualize too much.

Anu: No matter what way Raj had chosen to ask for Simran’s “hand” it would be problematic. An adult doesn’t need to take permission from a father figure for consensual activities with another adult 😉 But hey, this is a country which loves father figures.

@P: I would advise you to give away the Ayn Rand novels as well, but I’m afraid to shatter the nascent understanding between us. 🙂

Re: KKHH – your take is as valid as mine. I will agree to disagree but I will admit that the gazebo scene makes even my cynical heart go pit-a-pat.

Pooh – no. Just no. Someone kill me now. 🙂

‘Asking for her hand’ is problematic. Yes, technically, two adults can do anything consensually without anyone’s permission. But in real life, is that really true? Don’t we all bend a little when it comes to the people we love?

In DDLJ, my recollection is that they want her father’s blessings? (I have no intention of watching it again to check the veracity of my memory.) That, I can get behind. I am very close to my father and would not want to hurt him. But if my husband had asked his ‘permission’ to marry me, my father would have a) fallen out of his chair laughing b) asked him if I knew he was asking for my ‘hand’ c) told him that he hoped my husband knew what he was getting into.

But I’m guessing that’s true of a lot of us, if we’re close to our parents – my folks are very important to me. My husband loved his parents. I can’t see cutting off old relationships to forge new ones and (either of us) being happy about it. (You’ve talked about how close you’re to your mother – would you cut off all relations with her to marry someone you love? Or would you spend some time at least trying to get her to see your point of view, to accept that you have a right to live your life?) Now, I’m talking about ordinary, normal families. Locking me up, or actively trying to get me married to someone else would mean all bets are off.

In DDLJ, that whole bit made me want to barf. I hated Raj being such an obnoxious twit in the beginning; I didn’t think well of him for his behaviour in her house in India. In any case, it didn’t work for me. At all.

(Also, it’s not just India. I have known several young women here who want their prospective husbands to ‘ask for their hand’. Ugh!)

P, Interesting that you mention QSQT . I saw Sairat yesterday and one scene was very similar to QSQT – Prashant gets grocery and Archana says she does not know how to cook. Juhi : Hame khana banana nahi aata (or something like that)

Another scene, when Prashant is looking for Archana all over and then sitting at home , heartbroken , she comes back , is reminiscent of a similar scene in Dil.

So a really nice thing happened after my conversation with Seema Biswas at the IFFK. A couple of people in the audience came up and said they loved reading the blog, and they loved reading the comments even more. They said I have such knowledgeable and passionate commenters, and I grinned and nodded.

So yay to all of you! 😊

Here’s another nod to you guys:

“Look at the comments section of any Baradwaj Rangan review and see the kind of ideas discussed about a film.”

BR: I agree that Sairat’s scope was epic, (still haven’t garnered the guts to watch it!)

What point I was trying to make was is there no in-between? Are people who are in love going to behave like the dolts like in Befikre or do they have to face mad threats and die?

Is there no option where you get engaged and tell your parents about your decisions and they join in the festivities? And I am not saying there shouldn’t be conflict. There should be. I mean there are other places where conflict can come from. The problems of living with each other, understanding, adjusting expectations, philosophical differences et al…these are the problems that people of our generation actually are grappling with.

It would be nice if more film-makers like Imtiaz Ali and Manirathnam existed. In neither of the movies the parents “approval” really matters. They are happy cause you are happy. They dont get to be not ok because that is not their place in our life.

Maybe its time for me to write that movie I’ve been planning forever 😉

Also, thanks for the shoutout. You are the best host honestly. And you start every conversation. Your blog is a party I never want to leave. Its just so much fun! 😀

@Anu: haha. I encountered Ayn Rand 12 years ago as a suicidal teenager. If I am alive today, its because of Objectivism. Absolute and complete credit to her so even if you gave that advice (which a lot of people have given me!) I wouldn’t take it 😉

Re: KKHH – your take is as valid as mine. I will agree to disagree but I will admit that the gazebo scene makes even my cynical heart go pit-a-pat.

Absolutely- lets disagree on KKHH, but I identify with Anjali a lot so i might be biased 😉 Wish I had a Rahul though 😛 All my teenage crushes have turned out to be crashing bores with bald pates and paunches. meh.

Pooh is something only the filmi keedas of my generation will get 😀 I saw Parineeti quoting her in KWK and it made me like the already likeable Pari even more!

Ok, on to the meat of your comments, gonna quote and reply:

‘Asking for her hand’ is problematic. Yes, technically, two adults can do anything consensually without anyone’s permission. But in real life, is that really true? Don’t we all bend a little when it comes to the people we love?

Not in my generation I think. I would say YRF’s own “Bang Baaja Baraat” is more representative of the way my generation goes about marriage. You inform parents, they are ok (or they better be 😉 ) and that’s about it. I am talking about the super-urban sort of people that YRF is showcasing in Befikre.

In DDLJ, my recollection is that they want her father’s blessings? (I have no intention of watching it again to check the veracity of my memory.) That, I can get behind. I am very close to my father and would not want to hurt him. But if my husband had asked his ‘permission’ to marry me, my father would have a) fallen out of his chair laughing b) asked him if I knew he was asking for my ‘hand’ c) told him that he hoped my husband knew what he was getting into.
But I’m guessing that’s true of a lot of us, if we’re close to our parents – my folks are very important to me. My husband loved his parents. I can’t see cutting off old relationships to forge new ones and (either of us) being happy about it. (You’ve talked about how close you’re to your mother – would you cut off all relations with her to marry someone you love? Or would you spend some time at least trying to get her to see your point of view, to accept that you have a right to live your life?) Now, I’m talking about ordinary, normal families. Locking me up, or actively trying to get me married to someone else would mean all bets are off.

In DDLJ, that whole bit made me want to barf. I hated Raj being such an obnoxious twit in the beginning; I didn’t think well of him for his behaviour in her house in India. In any case, it didn’t work for me. At all.

(Also, it’s not just India. I have known several young women here who want their prospective husbands to ‘ask for their hand’. Ugh!)

The father had given his blessings elsewhere already. He had decided when/who she’s marrying as a kid. He whisks her away to India (which is pure blackmail/bullying) once he gets to know she is in love with someone else. He never listens to her or understands her. He does kinda lock her up and tries to get her married to someone else. Which is why Raj has to lie in the first place to get into the house. I don’t really think that is an ordinary family. It is just presented in a familiar, ordinary manner. It is as dangerous as a Sairat IMO.

If it was just about getting blessings, then “Humpty Sharma Ki Dulhania” is how that scenario would work out. Where they don’t want to elope but nothing is hidden from the family either (I still find that problematic btw, itna bhi kya loyalty where your boyfriend is beaten up by dad and his goons and you’re all please papa, let me go na? hmf)

Since you asked, yes, I am very close to my mother. But I also do not allow her to bless or question my decisions. It is simply not her place and she wouldn’t even dream of doing so. In fact, she has let me make some crazy, stupid mistakes, because she knows that that is how I will grow. In the same way I do not make her decisions either- though I have started seeing my friends tell their parents what to do(mostly on finance and where they should stay et al) and find it really creepy. We love each other yet we are independent. And that is because neither of us is below 18 😉 My mom doesn’t even know how much I earn. She has very clear demarcations because she thinks people need to be in their limits. The love between us has no strings attached.

I would actually cut off all relations with anyone (not just my mom) who tried to interfere in my life. Good or bad, my life is mine. (Geet from JWM philosophy 😛 )

Yeah, I’ve heard of Westerners “asking” for hand as a formality or having the father “Give the bride away” YUCK. How can people romanticize such things? Its really beyond me.

And I actually LOVED Raj in the beginning of the movie 😉 He’s brash and fun. I liked him in the second half too, except for that “Main Hindustani ladka hoon, jab tak tere papa mere haath mein tumhara haath nahi dete, main tumhe yahan se nahi le jaaunga” part. I found his ideals for that bit only to be problematic and that he imposed this on Simran. Never even asked her or convinced her about why that is correct. Like when is nationality a justification for that shit? hmf.

Yashji was requested by JB (who was his rakhi sister) to change the ending

Really?, that;s the first time i am hearing it. Silsila would have been a much better film if YC has stuck with his original casting of Smita, Amit and Parveen. i have heard various versions of why the casting was changed. That Amitabh had requested this change or the publicity crazy Chopra himself cajoled Bachchan to force this casting. Also Bachchan himself was reeling under a spate of flops at the time , having had a dream year in 77, 78 and 79, he had a weak 80, so the 2 women in his life at the time took the initiative to come together, whatever the reasons, the film has been forever scarred by the off screen equation that existed between the central trio.

(Just like HDDCS ends midway the title song when Sameer runs towards Nandini on the bridge!!)

This i dont agree. i was happy to leave Aishwarya with the Ajay than with that idiot Salman 🙂

Vanraj was not Nandini’s equal in anyway or form MANK! He doesn’t even sing. So besura. Sameer and Nandini were perfect for each other. Artists both, temperemental, but also intense, and emotional and playful.

Punee, the thing is that she has fallen in love with vanraj and out of love with Sameer. She sort of comes to the conclusion that what she had for Sameer was more of an obsession or a massive infatuation.So question of whether or not he could sing well or not is revelant anymore . Again it’s not necessary that artists only marry artists. I don’t think madhuri dixit’s husband dances as well as her😉

Silsila‘s ending changed because Yash Chopra knew he would be crucified if he kept it the way it was. Especially when the casting changed to become Rekha – Amitabh – Jaya. Parveen was out because her illness was beginning to take its toll even then, and then Chopra decided to cast Rekha. That became an issue because Amitabh had decided not to act with Rekha anymore. (I don’t know if Jaya had something to with that decision.) Once that decision was made, Chopra made a call to AB asking if Jaya would be interested in doing the other part. When she agreed (again, no reasons given by any of the parties; only sheer speculation on the part of film magazines), he ditched Smita who was very upset about that.

Once he had the casting coup of the century in place, he couldn’t afford to be true to his story – the real life speculation about these three people meant that the sympathy lay with the wife. Both Chopra and AB would have been hanged in the court of public opinion, and they had too much at stake.

MANK: Vanraj is also a failure in his career- he is a self-admitted loser who wouldn’t have a chance in hell with Nandini if his family’s status had not met with her father’s approval.

Madhuri’s husband is very accomplished in his field from what I hear 🙂 It was also his idea for her to start the online dance academy – for which I am very thankful every time there is any wedding 😀 He’s not a loser.

She hasn’t fallen in love with Vanraj. She very clearly tells Sameer that her husband taught her that real love is sacrifice. Meaning that since Vanraj could “sacrifice” his love for her, then she also will “sacrifice” her love for him. Its a disgusting philosophy.

Anu: If you see the interview done by Uday Chopra with Yash C on youtube. He says that he asked all three of them seperately if they would do it and then made the announcement and escaped to switzerland. They were highly professional and shot as required.

The rumours say they even shot the real ending as written and then JB got cold feet and requested the ending to be changed.

Another quote from the infamous BBC interview (which rumours say ABSr tried to get blocked)

In the interview on Sonia Deol’s show on Wednesday 11th August, Yash Chopra spoke openly about the Amitabh Bachchan and Rekha affair in the late 70s / early 80s. It’s the first time since the affair that a person of Yash Chopra’s stature has spoken so candidly about it.

He said the affair was definitely going on before he started work on ‘Silsila’, which coincidentally mirrored what was happening in real life. Yash said, “I was always on tenterhooks and scared (during Silsila) because it was real life coming into reel life. Jaya is his wife and Rekha is his girlfriend – the same story is going on (in real life). Anything could have happened because they are working together.”

Yash said that ‘Silsila’ was not inspired by the infamous affair; even though the movie was released post the controversy. He further added that he was only able to complete the film (despite the rising tensions) because he had good relations with the cast. “I cast them because they are great actresses, not because of what was going on. I felt lucky to get them.”

Even now, the #Bachchan clan is remaining tight-lipped about what really happened, so no doubt this public revelation on the BBC Asian Network will cause embarrassment to the family.

Yash said, “When a man and woman are doing romantic scenes it’s not possible they won’t get in a relationship – in the past it wasn’t so open, but today it is. No one cared in the past.”

P: I hated the ending of HDDCS too, and ranted about it for days. I was much younger then, and totally hated the idea of an “ideal husband material” or what I thought of was Bhansali “playing safe and keeping the wife with the husband as per Indian culture”. Given that the first half was pretty similar to a book (Na honnote – in Bengali) that I had read over and over during the late teens, I wished that the ending had been similar, i.e. there would remain unrequited love and not this “I fell in love with my husband”.

However, I do think, many years hence, that what she said was that “Sameer taught him how to fall in love whereas Vanraj taught her how to love (pyaar nibhana)” and the sacrifice bit that you talked about. So, I guess it can be argued that she was infatuated with Sameer and then she grew to love Vanraj.

(I think I still have a similar complaint about the book “A suitable boy”)

Back to Befire though – is this a case that expectations were really low, so the audience was happy with what they got? Or is this movie a semi-hit because enough people do go to the movie halls to see male butts and women in lingerie?

I can only think that Nandini suffers from Stocklohm syndrome in the second half of the movie. How else could she fall in love with a guy who tried having sex with her on their first night together WITHOUT her permission (while she was asleep). Vanraj’s character was so fuckin’ problematic. When she refused to have sex and freaked out, he started yelling at her that she was lying to him. Now we as an audience knows she has a secret. But a freshly married guy being pissed off about no sex gets to yell at her for it? Like WTF! And this, this loser GETS her?

I could understand if one person fell out of love with her first love and fell in love with a new person. Sure. Done. But how can that new person be justified when he was forced on her by her parents, when he was a loser, unskilled, untalented, only caring about family- maan maryada etc. Why because he spoke nicely to her once or twice? Because he never had the courage to say that he loved her and instead guilted her into feeling bad for him and coming back to him?

UGH. There was a time when Vanraj didn’t disturb me so much, but having met men like him, I just cannot forgive it.

Give me Sameer any day. Talented, unworldly, charming, sweet(so sweet in fact that he didn’t even break the stupid promise that he made to her stupid, irrational baba!!) Sameer who can’t digest Indian food and makes silly jokes. His worst sin was that he said men are better than women because they can take their shirts off in public. I would take that any day over Vanraj’s mauldin’ rubbish.

And didn’t everyone my age cry to Tadap Tadap for all those teenage heartbreaks? 😦 😥

Re: Befikre from what I know is not doing so well…people are making jokes about it. Initially it was the Ranveer+YRF brand that made people go. Especially now that the gay kiss from the opening song has been deleted

Punee, you are entitled to your opinions about Vanraj, but some of your readings about the character are absurd.

The scene where he yells at her was not for having refused sex. he has difficulty in understanding why she is keeping her distance from him. she is not communicating with him any which way, which is what the husband and wife are supposed to do on a wedding night. she just keep brushing him away . Now Vanraj is a fellow from an orthodox burgoise family which thrives on patriachy. its natural for him to get upset and insulted when she behaves like that. even if he wasnt, he would still be offended by her coldness.

You could see the attitude of the men in the family later on, when he tells his father that he intends to take his wife to meet her lover as she does not love him, his father asks him to subdue her using physical force as thats what people of his class do to control women. he refuses to do that.

Again what is this repeatedly sticking the loser tag on Vanraj, that he cannot sing, that he cannot openly confess his love like Sameer. how do you know he was not good at what he do. i dont remember his profession in the film, wasnt he a lawyer or something.Just like what i said about Madhuri’s husband. he cannot dance or act , but he is an accomplished doctor who supports his wife in her artistic pursuits. How do you know Vanraj wouldnt do the same.

Stockholm syndrome you say?, A captor who suffocates his captive with love and devotion and the captive falls in love with the captor forgetting about her one true love with whom she ha come to meet. huh. if he was able to do that , then her love for sameer was never strong enough and she correctly evaluates it to be more of an obsessive infatuation.

You got back to Chennai right the very next day? Or you could stay back and watch a few films? Even then, you have already watched (and spoken about) a good number of the movies screened here, in Berlin and Mumbai. Maybe the Malayalam Cinema Today section and the Ken Loach Retro section would have been of interest to you.

It was my first time in a film festival, and I must say it’s one-of-a-kind, with watching films and quasi-stalking people you’ve seen only on screen, going on side-by-side. Got to watch 10 films in 3 days, and if not for festival fatigue, it would have been a knockout experience.

Sir (and others), when and where did you first attend a film festival?

P, you are going into your raptures here again, and in your bid to defend the Samir-Nandini love, excoriating Vanraj for every crime under the sun, even if he didn’t do it. 🙂 MANK has already answered you but I will add this: If Vanraj is a loser for all the supposed crimes he committed, then Samir was a bigger loser. If you’re against lovers even asking for their parents’ blessings because ‘no one has any right to interfere with adults’ lives’ then you can’t turn around and argue that Samir is ‘so sweet’ for keeping his silly promise.

Which, by the way, I also loved (still love) Tadap tadap.

As far as Yash Chopra is concerned, you seem to have things backward: The Yash Chopra of Silsila was very different from the Yash Chopra who made Lamhe. FWIW, he made a ‘don’t care for the audience’ debut – Dharmputra. It’s failure taught him much. Obviously he didn’t want to upset the applecart again, once he tasted success. That was the case with Silsila as well. Obviously, once you reach a certain age and a certain stature, you get to the point where you give a damn and decide you want to make the movie you want to make. Hence, Lamhe. That film’s failure put him right back where he started.

You have a habit of anointing people either saints or sinners. 🙂 I get that you admire Yash Chopra, but he’s human, and while I’m sure he would have liked to have made the film he wanted during the making of Silsila, the Amit-Jaya-Rekha casting meant that he had to be extremely careful about what he showed. And the Chopras have always, always! been attuned to both box-office diktats and public opinion.

MANK: I know HDDCS by heart. Vanraj is a lawyer like his father but he keeps telling Nandini that he’s not a good one. In fact he has never won a case. And he jokes about it. like, lol, hilarious, I am terrible at my job but then its ok, cause I am rich and that bought you.

Now I don’t care if he is patriarchal or not(unless you think that is a justification), does he have the right to make out with her without her permission while she is asleep?

If you have not seen the film in a while I ask you to re-watch it(I put myself through it once every year- yeah I am mad like that!). Notice the sheer disgust in Nandini’s face as she is woken up by the touch by a strange man’s lips on her body…

Here, watch: (I am disgusted by it, but maybe you need the reference of what I am talking of!)

Anu: I DO NOT think Sameer’s adherence to Baba’s promise is sweet. Its a horrid and manipulative thing that the old man did and he should have never listened. But gullibility is not such a great sin as molestation in my eyes.

I do not anoit Sameer as a saint, nor is Vanraj a sinner, but its clear who is better than the other.

Its difficult for me to beleive that Yash Chopra who worked with classical musicians like Shiv-Hari or who pulled off the casting coup of the century (post Amit-Rekha’s break up that too!) would balk and change the ending on his own. Do not compare him to his dolt of a son. There is just no comparision. He made Deewar too- remember? Lots of people rejected their script before YC decided to take it up. Anyway like I said we can totally agree to disagree about it 🙂

PUKE. Please tell me which part of her spoken dialogue indicates that she has fallen in love with Vanraj and has re-evaluated her feelings for Sameer as infatuation. She is very clearly doing her duty as a good sanskari wife. Thats about it.

Rangan sir:
You got back to Chennai right the very next day? Or you could stay back and watch a few films? Even then, you have already watched (and spoken about) a good number of the movies screened here, in Berlin and Mumbai. Maybe the Malayalam Cinema Today section and the Ken Loach Retro section would have been of interest to you.

It was my first time in a film festival, and I must say it’s one-of-a-kind, with watching films and quasi-stalking people you’ve seen only on screen, going on side-by-side. Got to watch 10 films in 3 days, and if not for festival fatigue, it would have been a knockout experience.

Sir (and others), when and where did you first attend a film festival?

Unlike for you, Death in Sarajevo was a bit disappointing for me. I felt that the tracking shots were at times repetitive and listless. It was frustrating when a going-to-be-long take came with a cut as a tracking shot changed to one with the camera static. Even the interview scenes went on to be borderline stage-y, and what was it with those lifts? Some stretches though, like the one where Lamija searches for her mother, were nothing short of brilliant.
Perhaps because I haven’t watched an Altman movie yet, I was also a bit confused about what genre it fell into.

This was shown during the 9-12 slot, so I guess being tired must’ve made me this cranky.

Punee,now that you put the clip out there, please see how the scene progress. He is doing his best to communicate with her, but she coldly brushes him off and goes to sleep. He is totally confused about her behavior and you see him sitting there thinking beside her. Maybe he comes to the conclusion that she might be more receptive to physical intimacy – after all sex is one of the things that husband and wife do on the wedding night, he asks her exactly the same question when she thwarts his advances- or he just couldn’t hold himself back – who can with Aiswarya sleeping beside you 😃 ,.but he stops when she makes her intentions clear.and you call him a molester

Regarding him being a stranger, it’s true for her and yes it was wrong for him to kiss her when she is asleep, but look at it from his perspective. She is his lawfully wedded wife, not some girl jise woh utvake lays hai bina marzi.

Again he blows his fuse when she offers herself as a sexual object to him , by taking off her saree. That’s when he yells at her. That’s not what he wants. He had already told her that they should begin their marriage on the basis of mutual trust and understanding and they do not keep any secrets – in a scene proceeding this clip – from each other. but she continues to do that.that’s what makes him angry and not the refusal of sex. You could see him begging her to tell him what’s wrong with her as he does not want to continue with a marriage that she is not happy with

That scene is filled with so many nuances, so many details, but you have simplified it to its most unfair assessment – vanraj the molester, Vanraj the loser , phew!

It is wrong for him to kiss her while she is asleep, yet its ok because he is her husband? Maybe you have forgotten that there is something called marital rape sir.

In the case of a husband who has NEVER met or spoken to the wife before marriage it is the equivalent to being strangers.

Many women are very shy and scared especially in arranged marriages. And many men do the things that Vanraj does(even worse). Maybe you think he is justified because Nandini had her own secrets(for which she deserves such treatment?)- but he had no way of knowing what those secrets are. How did he assume she is hiding something. Maybe she was just scared. She looks terrified and disgusted.

I cant put on my patriarchal glasses to “understand” and “forgive” him for that. Good on you if you can see things from his patriarchal perspective.

To me he is a loser- a self-admitted one at that who never won a case and is a lawyer only because his dad is one. You can watch the movie to see that scene. I am too lazy to find it for you from the internet.

He is a molester because he touched a woman(who first saw him that morning probably!) without her permission in the dead of the night! While she was asleep. And what makes it worse, both you and he think he has a right to it because he “married” her.

Punee, no i was not serious , i said that on a lighter note, i thought it was obvious

Again regarding your earlier comment about marital rape etc, i am fully aware of that and if you read all my comments about the film you would realise that i am not arguing for that at all. i have said whatever i could about that particular scene and my understanding of Vanraj’s character. i think its the same Kashi mastani situation all over again with us and anything further would only lead to bitterness. i dont want to argue with you any further about a 17 year old film and spoil the wonderful relationship we have here. peace 🙂

MANK: I agree with the explanation you have about Vanraj’s behavior. That is not what put me off the ending.
I was struggling with getting parental approval at the same time, and the way Nandini is forced into the marriage by her father and later decides to stay back, made me feel that her emotions, her moments with Sameer were reduced to nothing, and it was almost as if parents know best.

P: With due respect to Sameer’s passion and the fact that he was fun and was a good singer – I am not sure if I would call Vanraj a “loser” :).

I like that Bhansali offered up two equally “eligible” men with totally different temperament and selling points and I might be oversimplifying, but it seems like one represented adolescent passion/first love whereas the other one stood for mature love where both sides understand their limitations/aspirations/adjustments. In real life, these might be the same person, but in this movie, they are not.

(I think I should stop writing about HDDCS in a thread about Befikre 🙂 )

To be clear this is what I think of all the principal people in the movie:

Sameer is a gullible and talented fool.
Nandini is confused between traditions and love. She ends up choosing duty and tradition for which I will not forgive her too.
Her parents are cruel, amoral, monsters who think its their right to control her life.
Vanraj guilts her into staying back with him. Especially after what he did to her on the wedding night, he should have been ashamed of himself to even dream that he ever deserved her.

Sameer and Nandini have the least power in this struggle. Vanraj and her parents have the most power.

So I will excoriate the latter set of people more than the former for the choices they make.

And it is right too.

Apu: Vanraj is a loser in my eyes because he’s not good at what he does (sure it doesn’t need to be music but whatever it might be!)- has openly said that he loses all cases- dont know how many times I should repeat this. He refused to be introduced to Nandini by his sister when he first had a crush on her- because he was insecure about his looks. He just got his parents to do the dirty work. He also touched her while she was sleeping and attempted to make out with her- just because she, a stranger was now married to him. you still dont think he’s a loser, good for you- we don’t need to agree.

MANK: I don’t appreciate rape jokes, so I guess I didn’t see your humour.

Apu: So far as I know all that Bhansali tries to represent (in his own words) are : “Since I have been unhappy and unrequited in love, none of my characters will be happy in love either.”

Sure, we can conjecture all we want (even in a Befikre thread!)

Tell me this?

How Vanraj who has no professional ambition- is “mature” compared to Sameer who travels all across the world to learn from a learned mentor, gets his heart broken, yet continues his work, and pours all his passion into making a grand concert?

Vanraj never bothered to interact with Nandini(Though he had the opportunity) and just assumed his “Right” on her post marriage yet he is more “mature” than Sameer who respected Nandini, who always loved her, who never even raised his voice to her even at his most angry- when she slapped him…who admired her fiestiness, who didn’t mind when she poked fun at him, who worked HARD to gain her affection and love….?

The minute Sameer found out that she was married and couldn’t bring herself to come back to him, he “let” her go, he didn’t manipulate her feelings in anyway, Vanraj manipulated her feelings until the end- when he left her alone at the concert with a hangdog expression on his face and the final words “kya tum….” hanging in his mouth, yet Vanraj is more mature?

Sure, if your personal dislike for the actor who played Sameer is coming in between your appreciation of Sameer as a character, that is a different matter, but I fail to understand how Vanraj is “mature love where both sides understand their limitations/aspirations/adjustments” when its actually Sameer who respects her limitations, aspirations and adjustments.

To me Vanraj represents every pampered Indian man who thinks that just because he is rich, he is owed a beautiful woman to sleep with by the universe at large, who tries to be large hearted and generous but is in reality just trying to win points for that too and is in truth a petty, conniving, heartless, loser who is rarely if ever fit to wipe the boots of the unfortunate woman who is married to him by her parents.

MANK: I don’t appreciate rape jokes, so I guess I didn’t see your humour.

Punee, this is outrageous. i dont make rape jokes, never made one in my life. you are insulting me and casting aspersions on my character when you insinuate something like that.

What you call a rape joke was just my feeble attempt to find a humor in the absurdity of you repeatedly calling an act – where the husband gets attracted to his wife on the wedding night and getting intimate with her but stopping the intimacy at the very moment when she makes it clear that she is not interested in his overtures – as rape.

even if you dont agree with me you had no business tagging me as someone who make rape jokes as i wasnt resorting to any cheap repartee to make my point but i went out of my way to explain my views about that scene

P, I was sitting on my hands because I figured this was going to be another ‘Bajirao Mastani’ fiasco, but honestly, stop with the hyperbole. MANK was not making a rape joke – a husband reaching out to his wife, even in an arranged marriage, is not ‘rape’ unless he forces himself on her. Which Vanraj doesn’t. There’s an element of sex in a marriage, and at least initially, you take it for granted that your spouse will be a part of your marriage, physically, emotionally, mentally.

We are not trying to make you believe anything – you are free to believe Vanraj is a loser, Samir is great, and Nandini bowed down to duty and tradition. Many of us are free to disagree with that premise. I admire your passion for films and the characters that speak to you, but please don’t resort to ad hominem attacks when you respond.

MANK: I really don’t know what to say. You joked about a man not being able to resist himself since his wife is as beautiful as Aishwarya. He did not take her consent, forget verbal, there was no visual or any other sort of cue either because she was asleep.

The arranged marriage system is notorious for throwing inexperienced men and women together and demanding that they have sex on the first night. Does that mean they are right? Is it ok to forget that consent is necessary for sex no matter what? He touched her while she was sleeping for god’s sake? Was the abject revulsion on her face not enough to prove that?

Wasn’t this the page that just a few weeks ago started a cause about how men shouldn’t be depicted as stalkers in Indian films because it influences people in real life? Does that principle fly out of the window only because we are speaking of great Indian khulchurrr?

As they say in US radio: long time listener, first time caller. I am a northie so read here only (mostly) for hindi movie review and you are doing a fantastic job B.Rangan. The discussion about DDJL and HDDCS pulled me in. I have not seen either of these movies for a decade so going by my buried memories of what these movies were. Also, over the past 2 decades have moved from one part of life where I would indeed ask (or be expected to ask) permission to where maybe I now sympathize with the other point of view. Father’s approval was mandatory in quite a few things and that’s how life was. I do not think anyone in our family was forced to marry, but I know people who did not care and “respected’ what parents decided. So while I have seen or am familiar with both sides of life, I am surprised as it appears people have see only one side of this, or even if they have seen both sides do not want to acknowledge the other side. Come on folks, this is India, this was India and while we have westernized quite a bit, this will be India for quite a few people for quite some time.

Liked Befikre but nothing much to say about it.

Would have been happy with either ending in HDDCS – I think (going by very distant memory) I was expecting the Salman ending but looked at the final ending as a good twist rather than looking at it with disgust (like many do here).

DDLJ – liked everything about it except the fight at the end – guess I was in the other team then.

But I guess a movie is just a movie for me and the only question is whether it is well made.

MANK: Chettaa, are you serious, or you just trying to match her hyperbolic style?

Rohit, of course i am serious. you see i am not a confrontational commenter by nature. i can tear myself away from a thread if it gets too hot for me. neither do i take offence at people criticising my views and i dont take them seriously enough for me to be outraged.Its all being part of the blog process.

Here its different. now i am used to Punees penchant for hyperbole and how she slips into this god mode where she starts making proclamations about the nature of characters- him the loser, he the lover, her the traditional, them the monsters, well i have always found this more amusing than anything where characters can be boiled down to one worded adjectives. But as long as she sticks to the characters in films thats fine by me, but she had no business doing the same to fellow commenters. she had no business rubbing her prejudices and ignorance on me and stick labels based on that. She picks out lines from your post as she picks out scenes from the film as and what suits her agenda without taking in account the whole point you are making and goes on a self righteous tirade.

i could have brush it off and held on to my dignity. but this is exactly what happened during the infamous Apex phase. he went after Rahini sticking labels on her . everybody including her kept their cool and dignity and kept quiet .everybody thought that was it. but in another post he went after her again and many others . things turned very ugly as much as it almost wrecked this blog. A lot of good commenters stopped commenting here.sometimes its better to speak out

if you have read my comments on this thread , i had struck a conciliatory note, just before that comment where i said i dont want to argue further about an 17 year old film and i had bowed out of this thread. but her Rape joke comment was totally unnecessary. i am determined to make sure that is not the last thing said about me on this thread. i am offended and i just wanted to make it loud and clear . as i dont want her to keep doing this to me or any other commenter on this blog

P, no, I have no great stake in ‘great Indian kulchur’ but you’re misrepresenting the scene and you know it. Vanraj sees Nandini’s revulsion and stops. He does not molest her, he does not impose himself upon her, he does not demand his conjugal rights. For right or wrong, a marriage arranged or otherwise implies conjugal relations. Vanraj cannot be faulted for thinking it was okay to touch his wife. Yes, she was sleeping, but he’s trying to wake her up, and yes, he’s feeling amorous. So yes, consent is necessary, and I would be the last one to say not, but in this context, a very real misunderstanding about social norms is revealed and once that happens, the man does NOT pursue the matter.

You are conflating ‘stalking as romance’ with a man touching his wife – whom he doesn’t know is repulsed by him and stopping as soon as he realises it to be one and the same thing. Not only that, you are also conflating a mistaken impression with marital rape, which is not the same thing. Do look at the context before you jump in head first to say things that are completely wrong even in the context of the film, much less in real life.

Even on the stalking page, most of us who were talking about the petition, were saying, look at the nuances of what’s been shown and in what context.

Again, do stop with the personal attacks on people you do not know at all. It takes away from your arguments.

Anyway, I will bow out now. MANK is capable of fighting his own battles; and I don’t want to get into a kerfuffle with you. Please let’s agree to disagree on this.

For what it is worth, there’s nothing really funny about “who can help themselves when it’s Aish?”, whatever the context. It’s exactly the sort of sexist humour women are expected to think is no big deal.

Anu, thanks. you saved me a lot of time and effort at making that comment and anyway don’t think i could have made it as well as you.

Gaah, . seriously,what do you mean by whatever the context.we are not making any comments arbitrarily here A particular subject in relation to a movie is being discussed and all our comments are made in that context . if you remove the context, then there is no discussion either.

in hindsight , could i have made my points without making that statement ?. most probably yes and may be even better.i probably diluted its integrity by my feeble attempt at humor and I am not proud about having done that. i regret if it came across as sexist. but here is the thing. one could sit down and do an extensive postmortem by picking out each and every sentence that one makes in course of an argument and say i could have said this or i should not have said this or i could have said it better different or whatever.But one cannot sit in judgement what one says spontaneously in the heat, exasperation of the moment of the argument. one tries out a lot of variables at that moment in your attempt in convincing the other of what you are trying to say. Sometime you are constraint by time or other factors that prevents one in measuring each and every sentence properly. but i dont think anybody would say that there was anything sexist or inappropriate about the bigger point (or any point) i was making there or anywhere on this thread and i would expect people following the discussion to judge me based on that.

@ Mank- I have a huge respect for the way you put forth your comments here and the knowledge you have about films even if I do not agree your analysis of some of them.

That said, I cringed at the comment you made about Aishwarya and agree with ‘Gaah’ that it is the sort of sexist humour women are expected to think is no big deal. I may not agree with ‘P’ for a lot of comments she put forth here and may not go to the extent of calling it a ‘rape joke,’ but there is some truth to what she said. You may say it was said in an attempt at humour, but this is like someone saying something and then goes on to add ‘just kidding.’ There is always a kernel of truth to it, isn’t it?

There is a whole lot of issues with that kind of statement, but I am going to refrain for the sake of shying away from an argument.

Sifter: Not many people, men or women, seem to understand that many jokes we unthinkingly make contain elements of sexual objectification. It seems to be in the very fabric of most jokes. Pointing this out is one thing and yes, it NEEDS to be done. But upgrading a sexist joke to a rape joke is as unthinking as making the sexist joke in the first place, no? Are we mistaken in seeing that as a deliberate form of quote-mining?

As a society we need to come out of sexual objectification and that can happen only with clear dialogue that remains sensible and sensitive. And I very much agree about the phrases “Just kidding” and “LOL” being used to supposedly soften sexist blows.

“i regret if it came across as sexist. but here is the thing. one could sit down and do an extensive postmortem by picking out each and every sentence that one makes in course of an argument and say i could have said this or i should not have said this or i could have said it better different or whatever.But one cannot sit in judgement what one says spontaneously in the heat, exasperation of the moment of the argument.”

Mank, I see where you’re coming from and it’s fine. This sort of picking apart line by line is exactly what Madan did in that stalking thread to many things the women were saying, and it is exasperating in the written form and requires a lot of back and forth. One comment does not colour you as something – so please don’t worry.

Sifter: You did say “may not go to the extent of calling it a ‘rape joke,’” so I did understand your stance. I was just commenting on the whole fiasco happening here. Maybe I should not have addressed it to you. It was a longer comment that I had decided to cut short.

“This sort of picking apart line by line is exactly what Madan did in that stalking thread to many things the women were saying” – Not “the women”, I only had an issue when one or maybe two of them appeared to suggest they would not feel threatened by advances by a guy who looks like Madhavan. I did not do anything very different from what you just did here, by the by. But hey ho, whatever floats your boat.

As ladies, let us pick our battles wisely. Thumbai vittu vaala pidikkara types is not helping our cause in anyway. Assigning some reference to the context and allowing some subjectivity would be quite helpful in separating chaff from wheat. We “know” this commenter (from his prolific posts here), his leanings and also are aware of the reader demographics of this blog – and yet we need to call him out repeatedly and unflinchingly.

For what it is worth – I found the profiling of a tone deaf person challenged in his career as a “loser” to be more offensive. Am 38, female with two daughters and that was from a gender neutral perspective. Should we not be moving towards gender-neutral championing of causes? I did not find the “who could resist Ash” as blasphemous. Does that make me sexist or just because am a lady, I am absolved?

Earlier this happened with this commenter “Apex”. It was obvious he was baiting everyone and us calling him out was akin to feeding the troll. And before that the usage of “demure housewife” brought the roof down. Well, unless there is some insecurity deep down, why would a lady take objection to the term? Beats me. We lost quite a few very sane and sensible commenters in the bargain, and those who managed to stay on-board possibly got too cautious of their written word.

This much vehemence from us a) gives rise to more animosity where legit causes too get tainted with the same brush of disapproval (refer the innumerable pages on, say, Facebook, that are dedicated to feminazi-bashing) b) gives rise to — well Trump like supremacy.

The essence is not to win such debates – which as eloquent women we can do hands down. But more to win the acknowledgement which needs more diligence.

PS: Am sure the above opinion could be seen as flawed. But as important it may be to be “correct” it is always correct to be empathetic.

The scene from HDDCS is a classic example of non solicitation of affirmative consent . From my cursory readings on this topic the main argument against affirmative consent seems to be that it can be a grey area ( actions that can be taken as implied affirmative consent are debatable) and the contentious atmosphere it may create can lead to a buzzkill . To me, this seems to be a difficult thing to legislate(and we are not even talking about BDSM) , and, I do not approve of govt intervention to such an extent that it can change the dynamics of behavior.

That said , the buzzkill argument seems a bit far-fetched to me. If both parties engage in a small conversation in good faith , then I am not sure how that would have an adverse effect on anything.

But I am conflicted and not well read on this, so would welcome other views. For now I am with affirmative consent.

P.S. , that said, I can live with the govt not getting into this . We should educate all and sundry about affirmative consent and take a stand for it, but at the same time I think its ok if Ajai is not be guilty of a crime for what he did in that video. Again , this is a topic that is difficult for me, willing to stand corrected.

Anu: You seem to imply that my consensual appreciation of Ranveer Singh’s body is equivalent to joking about a scene within a film to make a point. Are you really equating a ticket buying viewer with a husband in an arranged marriage context?

I would have no issues with MANK or you or anyone appreciating Aishwarya’s beauty or Ranveer Singh’s body if the context was not that it would mean this person deserved to be physically abused/assaulted.

I am not going to take back what I said. I am sorry if that hurts you MANK but I will not.

Also:

“For right or wrong, a marriage arranged or otherwise implies conjugal relations. Vanraj cannot be faulted for thinking it was okay to touch his wife.”

P: Really? Many words can be associated with you. Speechless is not among them.

So basically you are saying that you purchase tickets that says “I, Ranveer Singh, give the bearer of this ticket the right to comment on bits of my body?” “consensual appreciation” indeed.

Also, you did not know that marriage implies conjugal relations? No Punee my friend “implies conjugal relations” is NOT equal to “Right to rape/harrass/molest/torture” for we ALL know that someone is going to claim that in all her sweet and pure righteous indignation.

And “Are you really equating a ticket buying viewer with a husband in an arranged marriage context? There are so many things wrong with this line that I wonder if you actually ENJOY shooting your own leg or if these lines come out accidentally.

P, as Rahini says, ‘speechless’ is one thing you are not. As for the rest, you were sexually objectifying Ranveer Singh. MANK was [self-admittedly] sexually objectifying Aishwarya Rai. I don’t see the difference. Your being a ticket-buying viewer doesn’t give you any moral superiority. Also, you don’t seem to have any idea what ‘consensual’ really means. Unless you asked Ranveer Singh for his consent to objectify his arse.

[And no, the fact that he sashayed out there in his undies doesn’t imply consent. By which token, I could conflate it to, a woman is asking to be ogled and sexually objectified when she sashays out in skimpy attire. Before you jump down my throat at this, I said ‘I could conflate it’; not that I’m actually making that silly analogy.]

Two, a marriage does imply conjugal relations. How does it not? One assums that one is going to have sex with the man/woman one married. Unless the spouse implicitly tells you othewise, it is taken for granted in a marital relationship. You seem to be conflating ‘conjugal relations’ with ‘marital rape’.

In the context of the film, since Vanraj didn’t know that Nandini was coerced into a marriage with him, and apparently was repulsed by his touch, there’s nothing wrong in his reaching out to her. You seem to conveniently skip past the fact that he stops when he notices her revulsion. So where the hell is the rape? Or assault?

You have the courage of your convictions, that is good. I will not attempt to change your mind because that is not going to happen. Only, do be aware of such rigidity of notion that you miss the grey for the black and white.

As for the rest, I have some idea of how you present your arguments, and I think, despite Rahini having fun, I will end this here. Because beating a dead equine is not my idea of fun.

punee, No i am not hurt. as i said before i am outraged and i am shocked. Shocked that you have twisted my words around in to something completely opposite of what i meant . ultimately whatever happened here was perhaps my fault i let down my guard and made myself vulnerable . you know why? . because i was conversing with you , you were an acquaintance., like Rahini, Anu, or Kaykay around here with whom i could converse freely without being judged or misinterpreted. someone with whom i have shared warm and cordial relationships for almost a year on this blog. someone whom i enjoyed talking and trusted to taking it in the spirit of what it is being said , someone whom i stood up for countless times on this blog because i have always felt you were worth it. If it was someone whom i hadn’t corresponded before – and honestly we have exchanged even more risque comments than this – i wouldn’t have cared, i never expected you to judge me as the guy who goes around making rape jokes and once you did it i expected you to express a little regret about what you said, i am sorry to say this , but you fooled me and i am angry that i let myself be fooled

And i don’t care whether you take back what you said or not. I have been commenting here now close to 4 years now. I never had this experience on this blog never , i have written more than thousand comments here and i believe they would define what i am and not your one ignorant comment

One thing more. I believe you have aspirations to becoming a script writer . i hope you achieve your goal. i would definitely like to watch that film which you write. but please don’t boil it down to a story of characters who can be tagged as loser, traditional, monster, etc etc. thats not the kind of film i like to watch

its ironic that it was an SLB film that started our association and its an SLB film that’s gonna end it. i wish you all the best for your future

MANK: The Aishwarya comment = super cringey. However, I also realize everything is contextual. In the context of institutionalized and entrenched cultural misogyny, a comment like this makes me face palm, ESPECIALLY coming from someone like you, because – again, context – you are someone I look up to for a rounded out, balanced, typically respectful voice. I think if the reactions to your throwaway comment have been acrimonious, you should take it as how high most hold you in their esteem. This is how I feel, bas… I am not representative of all women, so I cannot speak for all of womanhood, and everyone else’s reactions are valid, Anu’s Punee’s… everyone else’s. My hope is that you stay here, stay commenting, and don’t look over your shoulder too much, because – and this is coming from someone who has read at least 500 of your 1000 comments – you are a fun part of this blog.

What gobsmacks me is the utter lack of self awareness that you, Punee are capable of. You have a problem with a throwaway comment made by a commenter toward a woman a world removed playing a fictional character in a decade plus old movie, and yet you had nothing much at all to say about a sleazebag-who-shall-not-be-named who was verbally molesting women in a thread you were super active in, in real time. Until, of course, you were called out and even then you were so freaking conciliatory – I will not wander into the minefield of comments from that thread because I have PTSD from it, but essentially all you said was, “uh, he was never mean to ME…” If what MANK made was a rape joke, then I think your past behavior puts you in the territory of being a rape apologist. You, Punee, are dangerously close to being a RAPE APOLOGIST. I am only being slightly sarcastic here.

I hate weighing in on threads without anything to add about movies, so I’ll just say it here. I finally watched Bajirao Mastani, and here is my take on it. Two thumbs whatevs.

Many of us make contradictory statements and then we say it is contextual. Something can offend us more while something may not. We are not programmed to react the same way all the time. If someone like so and so who habitually makes certain kind of remarks, it does not surprise us or shock us. We become shockproof. Even BR is not spared by some. It does not mean that they dont like him. Those instances are quite recent.

Olemisstarana, I understand what you are saying and it’s flattering if people here hold me to such high standards.

. If you or anyone felt that comment was inappropriate, then that’s what you felt. I can’t argue with that. I believe that I am a fair person but in the end I am still a man and as imperfect as the next one. So there is bound to be a certain male POV or bias in my comments intentionally or unintentionally . again I have my bad days too. So call me out by all means, but please do so without misjudging them without attaching any slanderous tags on them .

I do realize that I am not going to satisfy everyone with my comments, there is bound to be someone who will be offended by something . So I don’t bother much with that, – unless as it was this case- I will continue to have my say here as when it’s permissible for me

And thank you , (and thank you all ) for reading even half of my comments and finding it was fun , much appreciated

my pleasure Brangan. as i said before, i love this blog as if its my own. so it does pain me to see it in any crisis and specially if its caused by me. i hate to get in to these wars and try my best to steer clear of them but sometimes the inevitable happens. debating movies is a unique thrill of its own – nobody knows it better than you. sometimes you get carried away.hopefully, this experience will make me a better commenter

Someone recently asked me what book I was reading. I told them “Islam and the Future of Tolerance – A conversation”. And the comments on Baradwaj Rangan’s blog.

I don’t mean to take pleasure in someone else’s distress (as I can see many of you might be stressed out about the what is going on here), but I find all the comments (especially ones in threads like this) to be eye-openers in one way or another.

To me, so what if this specific thread turns out to be another Bajirao Mastani thread? I cannot think of very many places where people can really speak their mind.

Cringeworthy indeed. Am shocked and appalled…..at the casual usage of the term “rape joke”, tossing it around like confetti, to score some cheap, sensationalist points. This on top of totally misreading a scene in an old Bhansali movie and displaying a breathtaking ignorance of the sexual dynamics in a marriage, especially a new one. .

And to cap it all, taking an innocuous comment delivered in jest out of context, appending a repellent tag to it and slagging off a long-time Commenter who’s only ever displayed the most impeccable of manners and the utmost respect, even during heated debates. AND one whom you yourself seem to have built a fairly cordial relationship with. The attrition rate among your friends must rival the cast of Game Of Thrones. I know those in my circle with a stick shoved that far in the ass get shown the door pretty quickly.

Nice going, Pee. That horse you sittin on? Is it high enough? Where was the fire and brimstone when a REAL asshole started spewing REAL sexist and offensive shit on some of the female commenters here as pointed out by Ole Miss?

Not that MANK needs me to defend him, and Rahini D, Ole Miss and The Warrior have offered up enough convincing rebuttals to point out your wrong-headedness in this matter, but I couldn’t just sit on my ass when someone I admire and respect (and maybe hope to meet in person one day) gets besmirched like this.

As we say in my neck of the woods to annoying friends who don’t have a clue:

Kaykay, i was done with this thread man, but i had to come back to read you. i am not an emotional person per se, but your support and words of appreciation move me beyond words. i hope i am deserving of it. my only grouse is that you dont comment here often enough, but if my crisis situation inspired you to make a comment or two then perhaps it was worth it. As for meeting you, ah! honored. i am sure that meeting you would be on top of everybody’s wish list here including Brangan’s.